The CZ lux got a new pair of shoes

I think I've found a match made in heaven. I’ve already gone thru & accurized this rifle so I don’t need the 8-32 or 36x on it anymore. The old Lyman 20x all-American fits on the CZ perfectly & is setup for silhouettes which is sweet since 99% of my shooting is off-hand.

These CZ”S are tack driver & for some reason the longer pencil barrels on the trainer, lux’s & ultra lux’s seem to really shine. Some typical 25yd groups I shot with the lux before I worked on it.

Some typical groups after I worked on the lux. I was switching ammo’s that day & was rezeroing the scope in. The groups were looking good on top so I decided to see what that rifle/ammo combo could really do. It turned out 2 groups in the zeros & there’s a 3rd group in the zero’s on that paper in the top groups that I was shooting when I was sighting the scope in. All those groups are 5 shot groups.

I quit shooting flies @25yds with the lux because it got to where it was too easy, now the 50yd line is where I hunt/snipe them.

Seeing the groups these are capable of with serious optics has me eating my heart out.
I am torn as to what to do with mine. I love the factory irons and it feels really good to be able to SEE a set of irons these days.
The rifle handles so naturally without the scope too.

Realistically, I probably should scope it, but I want to use it for squirrel as well as for longer range and that leaves me to adjust the parallax on one of several centerfire scopes I have already. There's a nice, newer (Japanese) fixed six - a little "long" for the woods, a Burris Fullfield 1.75-5x22 and an old(er) Redfield 2-7. The Redfield makes the most sense, but I like the small objective of the Burris. The Weaver is the clearest/brightest of the three. I have decided against removing the Leupold VXII, 3-9 or the B&L Balvar 1.5-6 from the centerifres they currently grace, but either of the two are a bit nicer than the currently unattached scopes. That B&L is the cat's ass............ Sure would be nice on my Trainer............

Maaaaan, I don't want to have to buy another scope. Why are you doing this to me??

I’ve always been a sucker for the sporter 22’s!!! These classic rifles just give me that warm fuzzy feeling every time I pick up that walnut & blue steel.

Most of my shooting (99%) is done from the offhand/standing position. I set the scopes up accordingly, that CZ is setup for silhouettes. The Lyman scope is a match made in heaven for that rifle. It balances & points extremely well. It’s a perfect scope for rimfires, the AO goes down to 50ft & out to 200yds. I have no idea how old the scope is but it has beautiful glass, thin crosshairs & positive clicks on the adjustments along with the AO being firm to twist & has a lock ring to hold it in place once the yardage is set.

You may want a long scope for the CZ or a scope with a long eye relief. If you look at the back of the scope that’s mounted on the CZ you’ll see that it’s even with the pistol grip. That’s where you want the back of the scope to be so you don’t crawl the stock when you try using it. A good rule is where ever your head goes, your ass will follow.

A lot of scopes are made for centerfires and the AO will only go down to 40yds or so or the parallax is set for 100yds. Your best bet might be to use the irons for hunting & buy a target scope for target work & long range shooting. I had a 8-38 on the lux when I was shooting those groups.

These rimfires are highly accurate, very well made & are actually harder to shoot accurately due to the dwell time. To help compensate for the dwell time, the MFG’s that wanted to make competition rifles increased the lock time of the rifles. The rimfires actually led in the development of bolt design.

That’s actually what makes a classic sporter, they have excellent balance, a natural point of aim (point well), are extremely accurate & match grade triggers.

.......You may want a long scope for the CZ or a scope with a long eye relief. If you look at the back of the scope that’s mounted on the CZ you’ll see that it’s even with the pistol grip. That’s where you want the back of the scope to be so you don’t crawl the stock when you try using it. A good rule is where ever your head goes, your ass will follow................

Yes, and thank you. An observation not wasted on a guy who adores his Ruger No. 3 yet gets a pain in his neck every time he tries to shoot it offhand. I actually think that the Burris would put the occular closer to my eye but the Redfield is close. I have not found the rings yet to experiment. If either is too far away, I will leave it scope-less.

If that last rule were to apply today - I would have turned myself inside out.